American politics

America and Israel

Feeling Jerusalem

JOHN HEILEMANN'S article about how Barack Obama came to be painted as anti-Israel is a story about politics that conceals a story about American manufacturing: specifically, to use Mr Heilemann's own phrase, the manufacturing of "perfect bullshit". As Mr Heilemann pungently writes, the Obama administration has "never wavered in going balls-out for Israel". They blocked demands for an independent investigation into the Gaza flotilla raid that left nine activists dead. Security and military agreements between America and Israel remain strong. Mr Obama himself pressured Egypt into freeing Israeli diplomats stuck inside the besieged embassy in Cairo. And he has promised to veto Palestine's statehood vote at the UN Security Council. Even so, he has been pilloried for being "anti-Israel", whatever that means. The three leading Republican presidential candidates have accused him of "throwing Israel under the bus", "thumbing his nose" at Israel and for inviting a curse (points awarded for successfully guessing which candidate used the cliche, which one fears curses and which saw Mr Obama's actions as picking a fight).

Now, we can speculate about why such criticism has stuck, despite Mr Obama's robust support for Israel. Part of it is certainly that Mr Obama lacks the Manichean, with-us-or-against-us worldview of his predecessor; he is much cooler in temperament and rhetoric, and not just toward Israel, either. But I also think Mr Heilemann makes too little of the president's background: if he were President Bobby Howard O'Brien instead of Barack Hussein Obama, there might be some strong policy disagreements coming from the right, but I don't believe the anti-Israel narrative would have taken hold. Images like this would not go straight to the reptile brain. These same nasty innuendos floated around even before Mr Obama's election.

But absent from Mr Heilemann's piece, from the criticism of Mr Obama's would-be rivals, and indeed from the pro-Israel right more broadly is a compelling explanation of what the president should do, should have done, or should be doing.

Here, for instance, Jennifer Rubin works herself into a lather over whether the Obama administration is demanding that Israel agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders before commencing negotiations with the Palestinians. She then stresses over whether the administration is demanding that Israel negotiate with Hamas. Clearly it is doing neither. The 1967 borders have long been recognised as the rough border—not the precise shape, but the approximate one—between two independent states. Does she think that's wrong, and if so, what is her realistic alternative? And here is Jonathan Tobin, doing some serious intellectual acrobatics to blame Mr Obama for the impending Palestinian statehood vote. Apparently, the president failed to realise that Palestinian leaders were too weak to negotiate, and then failed to press them hard enough to negotiate. He "pick[ed] fights" with Binyamin Netanyahu over the status of Jerusalem—for which read "dared to mildly object to but did nothing to stop some settlement construction is East Jerusalem". And somehow, by speaking in support of statehood (as his two predecessors had done), Mr Obama convinced Mahmoud Abbas (who is too weak to negotiate, remember) to abandon the American-sponsored peace process. So it's all Mr Obama's fault.

To critics of the president's Israel policy, I'd like to know, what should the president do? And "stand with Israel" is not a suggestion, it's a slogan.

President Obama is not helping Israel!! President Obama finally realized that he needs to help America by presenting a foreign policy which can make America proud. A foreign policy which represents justice rather than politics as usual. Declaring a state will not bring peace to the M.E . Obama demands peace first. I wish him success.

It is hard for the president to do what everyone wants him to. I think that the mentality of with us or against us is out of place. We should always help Israel but we don't need to hold a steadfast mentality.

I'm sure the pres. has alot more to do than worry about Israel. And since his full attention isnt on the subject, he's getting bombarded by Israeli lover's. I'm sure he's too busy to direct his full attention on Israel.

Israel has the right to exist in peace, and the rest of the world has an obligation to maintain peace worldwide. From president Carter on, most USA presidents have engaged in talks and negotiations to restore peace in the middle east. Now americans are going to use Israel as a pawn for electoral purposes to paint the current administration as anti Israel. What else is new, as the president of the USA is under attack on all fronts as his ideals are too far ahead of time for the average typical american. A lot of images can be used to describe the typical average USA citizen, I will leave it up to you to define them. Can we expect anything sensible to occur nowadays in the USA, or have you not listen to some of the claims made by some of the top republican presidential candidates lately. In general, the crazier it gets the more the average USA citizen is energized, one who brings reason into the political debate will be labeled as professorial or full of him or herself. Do you really believe that the mud slaying will stick on president Obama, or do you have faith that some sign of intelligent life remains present in the USA though it is quiet for now.

Practically anything but unlimited support and love towards Isreal's policy for Palastine regardless of the merit results in the output of the censure that is anti-Israel.. The new smiling faces is the result of all the media around the world about them, even in America.

One of the nation of Israel's strongest supporters was a keen, dynamic Christian lady named Arlie Freeman, she recently passed away. Arlie called Ft. Smith, Arkansas home where she lived with her devoted faithful husband Ralph. From Ft. Smith's fine airport she flew some nineteen times to the Jewish nation. She was a quiet yet dynamic supporter of Israel. She marveled in this little nation's fight for survival.She never failed to support this small and brave little country in my presence.

To illustrate her resolve, following one of her trips she brought to me a statute of a lowly shepherd. The olive wood figure was obviously tired from exhaustion. He had around his neck one lost little lamb. That shepherd remains on my desk to this day.May Israel continue to merit the peace it so decidedly deserves. Long live Arlie's devotion, long live this little nation we call Israel!

This article mainly highlights the division in U.S. politics. President Obama, unlike his predecessors, has approached the middle-east issue, especially the Israel Palestine issue, with a fairly objective point of view. Even though the U.S. alliance and policy has not changed at all under President Obama, the fact that he was not afraid to cave into Israel's whimsical demands has got the Republicans rallying against him. This has provided the Republican candidates with fuel for the 2012 election. These candidates are vying to win the vote of the Jewish community in the U.S. that has predominantly support the Democrats in the past.

US foreign policy changes vary little depending on who is president. Concerning Israel it is totally ridiculous to suggest that there will ever be a US President who isn't pro-Israel, It's part of the job. The US is going to protect Israel one because we helped create it and two because it would almost definitely mean war: Jews vs Muslims in the middle east. Rest assured there is no way any US president would allow a religious war start in the middle east if it can be prevented.

Obviously from this article, Obama is hardly anti-Israel. It's important to remember, however, that he is still a politician. That means every action he takes has strong political and even personal motivations. He's not sticking his neck out for Israel because he feels sorry for the country, or we're stark supporters of Israel: there's a more complex motive behind his actions. Perhaps he's trying to show that while the U.S. is opposed to Palestinian statehood, they are involved in the progress of the region and aren't just a big sinister country trying to flush the statehood hopes of the Palestinians.